[General] (no subject)

Albrecht Giese genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Feb 4 09:50:45 PST 2016


Wolf,

good questions, and I see that more detailed explanations are always 
necessary but most times not so appropriate so not to bore the reader.

But to your details:

The sub-particles must be mass-less as they move with speed of light c. 
This motion with c is necessary to explain dilation. (Historically this 
was already seen this way by Hendrik Lorentz and Joseph Lamor around the 
year 1900; later replaced by Einstein's approach which was purely 
mathematical rather than physical.)

If the sub-particles ("Basic Particles") are mass-less then a planetary 
model is not applicable. So the other possibility is that they are bound 
to each other by a multi-pole field. This is not so special in physics 
as the bind of atoms in a molecule is also a multi-pole bind. Such field 
binds parts together and at the same time keep a distance as one partner 
resides in the potential minimum of the field of the other partner. In 
case of the bind between atoms it is the electric force, in case of the 
basic particle it is the strong force. But the structure of these fields 
is similar.

There is no force necessary in the normal case to keep these particles 
on their orbit as there is no mass. A force occurs if an "external 
agent" will act.  But to say it again: As the sub-particles do not have 
any mass there is no equilibrium of forces to define the circular path.  
The influence of an "external agent" will of course be also a field. 
This field overlays the internal field and for the time of such external 
action the fields are of course distorted to a certain amount. This is 
the situation were one can feel inertia.

The "external agent" who makes the whole particle move will in the 
normal case be an electric field. But may be as well any other kind of 
force if existent.

The orbital motion will explain an orbital momentum but also the 
existence of a magnetic moment in the case of an electrically charged 
particle. And that approach has very precise results from purely 
classical calculations, no QM necessary.

Maybe the fields in the particle are more complicated than I assume them 
to be, but for the question of mass, magnetic moment etc. my assumptions 
are sufficient.

Best wishes back
Albrecht


Am 03.02.2016 um 22:51 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
> albrecht;
> Your paragraph in bold below is a very nice and concise way to 
> summarize your point, especially if the Lande factor can be fit.
> I have "Relativity Based on Physical Processes Rather Than Space-Time" 
> and the "can a photon be described...." article from SPIE 2015
> I can see after eq. 2.6 the words "/this is now the inertial mass/...'
>
> this calculation makes sense but works out because you have
> 1) defined a specific binding field as a multipole bond
> 2) assumed mass-less particles which react individually to some 
> "external agent"
>
> Is there a reference or can you explain both of these assumptions or 
> else one might think you backed into them.
> I mean your requirements for the sub-particles and their fields may be 
> more complicated than the effects they explain.
>
> "for example you say the internal motion must be circular in order to 
> account for angular momentum"
>
> Does that not imply an inertial mass when the particles are in their 
> equilibrium orbits?
> If it takes an external agent force to show the properties of inertial 
> mass, how does this equilibrium field have a minimum.
> in the planetary orbit model the minimum is produced by a a coulomb 
> force pulling in and a centripetal force pulling out
> how did you get your minimum?
>
> best wishes
> wolf
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 1/30/2016 1:22 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> yes, we have to assume fundamentals in physics, and which those are, 
>> may be different for different physicists. In my view, forces are 
>> fundamental phenomena where I do not see an explanation on a lower 
>> level, at least at present. I follow QM at this point in so far, as 
>> forces are realized by exchange particles which are mass-less,  move 
>> with c and have a distance law of 1/r^2. .
>>
>> Momentum and inertia are in my view the same phenomenon. Someone said 
>> it earlier in this discussion: Momentum is the motion of an inertial 
>> mass. So, to explain inertial mass by momentum or momentum by inertia 
>> as general explanation are in my view tautological statements. There 
>> is something explained essentially by itself, nothing new about it.
>>
>> *Inertia is caused in my view (I think explained here several times) 
>> by a very fundamental process. Every extended object must have 
>> inertia. This is caused by nothing than the finiteness of the speed 
>> of light by which the internal forces in an object propagate. And 
>> without internal forces an extended object cannot exist. This is true 
>> for any type of force, so in our world the strong force and the 
>> electric force. In an elementary particle the strong force dominates, 
>> so I have restricted my explanation mostly to the strong force. To be 
>> precise, the electric force must not be overlooked. In my model the 
>> consideration of the electric force in the electron causes the Landé 
>> factor (very precisely!)*
>>
>> So,  the fact that an extended object behaves inert, is not a 
>> possibility or some special theory, but it is completely unavoidable 
>> that an extended object is inert.
>>
>> Only because you mention it: In my model there does not exist a 
>> gravitational mass because gravity has nothing to do with mass. But 
>> this is another topic. If you are interested you can find it 
>> explained on my web site "origin of gravity" (which is the no. 1 in 
>> the internet about this topic since 12 years).
>>
>> About Newton's law: As I have understood, Newton has defined mass as 
>> F/a. 'F' is in his view an elementary quantity visible e.g. by 
>> stretching a spring. 'a' is defined by length and time, both are also 
>> elementaries for him in the way that length is given by a prototype 
>> ruler and time by some sufficiently defined oscillators like a 
>> pendulum. We have better definitions now using means of higher 
>> precision, but that does not change the idea behind.
>>
>> One can of course have a lot of cognition-related thoughts about the 
>> understanding of these quantities, but that seems to me to be beyond 
>> the level which we need here.
>>
>> One famous American physicist ones wrote: Mass is a great mystery. I 
>> know that many understand it this way. But I am very sure that my 
>> finding that every extended object has inertial mass solves this 
>> "mystery" completely. It is my intention to convince my colleagues 
>> about this since more than 15 year on conferences and by the 
>> internet. And I have never got a refuting argument. Most main stream 
>> physicists refer to Higgs and say that one does not need another 
>> explanation. But never something more substantial.
>>
>> My model of inertia is in some way similar to the Higgs mechanism. 
>> According to the Higgs theory there are virtual particles 
>> intermediately generated in the Higgs field. These virtual particles 
>> couple to the real particle in view and keep staying at rest in the 
>> same inertial system as the real particle. If now the real particle 
>> is accelerated to any direction, it moves off the virtual Higgs and 
>> that needs a force. This force is inertia. - The similarity to my 
>> model is that in my model the role of the virtual Higgs is realized 
>> by the other (real) sub-particle in the elementary particle.
>>
>> My model does not explain why there are certain masses in particles 
>> realized and others not. Otto Greulich has found a numerical relation 
>> for the existing particles but no explanation why it works. In his 
>> algorithm the factor alpha plays an important role. And I have the 
>> impression that the relation of strong force and electric force, 
>> which is described by alpha, plays an essential role in the question 
>> if a particle is stable. Otto is looking for a possible mechanism, 
>> but up to now he has no solution. I also think about it, but 
>> presently also with no success.
>>
>> To your last comment: Momentum is the product of inertial mass and 
>> speed, as you surely know. Mass is scalar, that is right, but speed 
>> is a vector and so it is unavoidable that the product, called 
>> momentum, is a vector. But just from this definition of momentum it 
>> is visible that momentum is not fundamental but a combination of two 
>> other units. Isn't it?
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Am 28.01.2016 um 01:33 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>
>>>    You want to explain inertia and therefore momentum (in your view) 
>>> by the strong force. But what is your “mechanism” or explanation for 
>>> the strong force?  You have not explained or even tried to explain 
>>> the strong force so you are actually doing what you are accusing me 
>>> of doing — not explaining what momentum is or what is its 
>>> “mechanism”.  But I’m not trying to explain momentum, I’m trying to 
>>> explain inertial mass or inertia in terms of momentum. If inertia 
>>> can be explained in terms of momentum, I would say that is progress. 
>>> If this leads to a greater insights into why inertial mass equals 
>>> gravitational mass (if it does), that would be further progress. 
>>> Scientific progress occurs in steps, it’s not all or nothing.
>>>
>>>     Newton’s F=ma is actually a tautological or circular 
>>> relationship. A force F does not CAUSE acceleration. Acceleration is 
>>> observed and measured. “Force" is DEFINED as ma, never observed. Or 
>>> m is DEFINED as F/a.  “Mass" is also never observed. Physical 
>>> objects are hypothesized, observed, measured or inferred. None of 
>>> Newton’s laws have ever been experimentally proved, at least 
>>> according to MIT physics lecturer Walter Lewin (introduction to 
>>> mechanics). You can’t prove or disprove a definition. F=ma is a 
>>> circular relationship that works within certain limits without 
>>> knowing what either force or mass is fundamentally.
>>>
>>>      The cause of the inertia of the electron is considered to be 
>>> one of the deepest mysteries of physics. Frank Wilczek in his 
>>> article “The origin of mass” at 
>>> http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatmit/physicsatmit_03_wilczek_originofmass.pdf concludes: 
>>>
>>>
>>> "Still, as I’ve already mentioned, our understanding of the origin 
>>> of mass is by no means complete. We have achieved a beautiful and 
>>> profound understanding of the origin of most of the mass of ordinary 
>>> matter, but not of all of it. The value of the electron mass, in 
>>> particular, remains deeply mysterious even in our most advanced 
>>> speculations about unification and string theory. And ordinary 
>>> matter, we have recently learned, supplies only a small fraction of 
>>> mass in the Universe as a whole. More beautiful and profound 
>>> revelations surely await discovery. We continue to search for 
>>> concepts and theories that will allow us to understand the origin of 
>>> mass in all its forms, by unveiling more of Nature’s hidden 
>>> symmetries."
>>>
>>> And Wilczek is talking about the origin of the magnitude of the 
>>> electron’s mass, not the cause of the electron’s inertia.
>>>
>>>  I am not claiming, as you do, to derive the electron’s mass m = 
>>> 0.511 MeV/c^2  in a circular way from the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m 
>>> which isn’t even the electron’s experimental magnetic moment, only 
>>> an approximation calculated from the known measured values of e, h 
>>> and m.  But it is not tautological or circular to derive the 
>>> electron’s inertial mass m = 0.511Mev/c^2 from a circulating photon 
>>> model of an electron where this circulating photon has (for no known 
>>> reason) energy hf = 0.511MeV and momentum p = 0.511MeV/c . After 
>>> all, a photon’s rest mass (0 Mev/c^2)  is not the same as a photon’s 
>>> inertial mass (hf/c^2). And the rest mass m of a moving electron is 
>>> not the same as the inertial mass gamma m of this moving electron.
>>>
>>> As far as what you say about the Higgs mechanism and inertia, here’s 
>>> an interesting quote from Bernhard Haisch in 
>>> http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html . Haisch and 
>>> his colleagues have been studying inertia and its possible 
>>> explanation for years: "But the Higgs mechanism does not explain why 
>>> mass, or its energy equivalent, resists motion or reacts to 
>>> gravity," says Bernard Haisch of the California Institute for 
>>> Physics and Astrophysics in Palo Alto. He believes instead that 
>>> inertia and gravity are manifestations of far more familiar effects.
>>>
>>> So the Higgs field, while it may “explain” why some particles have 
>>> rest mass and others don't, apparently doesn’t explain the inertia 
>>> of mass. So your explanation of inertia is apparently not in 
>>> competition with the Higgs mechanism of mass. But I would say that 
>>> your explanation of inertial mass in terms of the strong nuclear 
>>> force IS in competition with the derivation of inertial mass from 
>>> momentum. And Occam’s razor and physical facts do apply.
>>>
>>> One more comment. Momentum is a vector quantity, with both magnitude 
>>> and direction. Inertial mass is a scalar quantity, with magnitude 
>>> only. So Inertia cannot be the same as momentum unless inertia is 
>>> also a vector quantity, having direction as well as magnitude. 
>>> Perhaps inertia IS a vector quantity after all, subject to vector 
>>> addition (and cancellation). That would be interesting.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 27, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Richard,
>>>>
>>>> there is not necessarily a hierarchy between mass and momentum. But 
>>>> the origin of all is the resistance against a change of the motion 
>>>> state. That resistance is called inertia. And this resistance 
>>>> causes momentum as well as mass.
>>>>
>>>> If you understand the momentum as on the top of the hierarchy, you 
>>>> have to explain which mechanism causes momentum. There must be one. 
>>>> What is it?
>>>>
>>>> My explanation of inertia is the only working one which I know. And 
>>>> which of course is not a tautological explanation. The other 
>>>> explanation followed by main stream is the Higgs model. That is 
>>>> derived from QM, and that is something which I personally do not 
>>>> like very much. But the strong argument against the Higgs model is 
>>>> the fact that the necessary Higgs field does not exist as far as we 
>>>> know. And again, I have never heard about another model of inertial 
>>>> which is not tautological.
>>>>
>>>> My model for leptons and for quarks has to function as it does, 
>>>> under the assumption that inertia has to be explained. And we may 
>>>> not ask for Occam's Razor if there is no alternative. I do not see 
>>>> any.
>>>>
>>>> My model explains the photon in a fundamentally similar way as a 
>>>> lepton and a quark. But for the photon something has to be added to 
>>>> explain its constant speed, i.e. the fact that it cannot be found 
>>>> at rest. And the fact of twice the spin. This letter point seems to 
>>>> me not too serious.
>>>>
>>>> The relativistic increase of the particle mass at motion (not only 
>>>> the electron, but all) is easily and straight explained by the 
>>>> model. Take the calculation of the inertial mass and adjust the 
>>>> distance of the sub-particles for the relativistic contraction. 
>>>> Then the straight result is the new mass increased by the factor 
>>>> gamma. Your find it in my web site about "origin of mass". And the 
>>>> relation energy to mass: E=mc^2 follows immediately from the same 
>>>> calculation. Who else has ever deduced the famous formula of 
>>>> Einstein? I do not know any else deduction which refers to a 
>>>> physical mechanism.
>>>>
>>>> Strong force? In the 1940s calculations of the electron have been 
>>>> made in Germany which were based on the assumption that there are 
>>>> only electrical forces in the particle. The resulting mass turned 
>>>> out to be too low by a factor of ca. 300. This is about the factor 
>>>> by which the strong force is stronger than the electrical one. So 
>>>> there is no surprise that with the assumption of the strong force 
>>>> the results are correct. I think this is a good argument. Isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 26.01.2016 um 01:50 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>> Hello Albrecht,
>>>>>
>>>>>    I know that you object to my derivation, but I am proposing 
>>>>> that momentum is primary and inertia is secondary. You have got it 
>>>>> backwards. The inertial mass of an electron is (in my approach) 
>>>>> quantitatively due to the circulating internal momentum of its 
>>>>> charged (or uncharged) photon. By extension, the inertial mass of 
>>>>> all particles with rest mass is likely due to internally 
>>>>> circulating momenta. It is true as you say that in a world without 
>>>>> inertia (or inertial mass) there would be no momentum, but in a 
>>>>> world without momentum there would also be no inertia (or inertial 
>>>>> mass). Inertia (or inertial mass) is due to momentum (in my 
>>>>> approach). Momentum is not due to inertia.
>>>>>
>>>>>   I know that your electron hypothesis attempts to derive the 
>>>>> inertia of an electron differently. But I think you will have to 
>>>>> admit that my derivation of the electron’s inertial mass from the 
>>>>> electron’s proposed circulating internal photon momentum is very 
>>>>> much simpler than yours (which is by the way based on highly 
>>>>> questionable premises since there is no accepted experimental 
>>>>> evidence for the strong nuclear force influencing electric 
>>>>> charges, zero experimental evidence for two sub-particles in an 
>>>>> electron, and your electron model’s apparently negative rest mass 
>>>>> due to its negative internal potential energy), and thus by 
>>>>> Occam's Razor, much to be preferred. Plus, your model doesn’t 
>>>>> derive the inertial mass of a photon as hf/c^2 or the inertial 
>>>>> mass of a relativistically moving electron as gamma m, does it?
>>>>>
>>>>>      Richard
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Albrecht Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Richard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you know that I object to your derivation of inertial mass. You 
>>>>>> deduce it from momentum. That is mathematically possible by using 
>>>>>> the known relations. But it is not logical in so far as momentum 
>>>>>> depends on inertia. In a world without inertia there would be no 
>>>>>> momentum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we have to explain first the mechanism of inertia itself, then 
>>>>>> we can derive the momentum and the inertial mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 24.01.2016 um 20:42 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>> Hello Vladimir and Chandra and all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Yes, I definitely support the idea of the ether as material 
>>>>>>> space, and that all physical particles are derived from this 
>>>>>>> ether. This ether can also be called a plenum or Cosmic Tension 
>>>>>>> Field.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    I don’t however think that it is necessary to explain the 
>>>>>>> inertial mass of particles in relation to a "coefficient of 
>>>>>>> inertia” or "the amount of momentum the ether resists." I have 
>>>>>>> shown 
>>>>>>> (https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia ) 
>>>>>>> by a very simple derivation that the inertial mass m of an 
>>>>>>> electron may be derived from the momentum of the circling photon 
>>>>>>> in a circulating-photon model of the electron, whose circling 
>>>>>>> photon has momentum mc where m = Eo/c^2 = hf/c^2 ,  where Eo is 
>>>>>>> the rest energy 0.511 MeV of the electron and f is the frequency 
>>>>>>> of the circulating photon in the resting electron. Secondly, in 
>>>>>>> a similar way I derived a linearly moving photon's inertial mass 
>>>>>>> to be M-inertial = hf/c^2 , where f is the photon’s frequency, 
>>>>>>> even though a photon has zero rest mass. Thirdly, I derived the 
>>>>>>> inertial mass of a relativistic electron, whose momentum is 
>>>>>>> p=gamma mv, to be  M-inertial = gamma m , even though the moving 
>>>>>>> electron's rest mass is m.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    I present these  derivations below, taken from the 
>>>>>>> academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> session on my electron 
>>>>>>> inertia article at 
>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/s/a26afd55e0?source=link :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "One reason people don’t think that a photon has any inertial 
>>>>>>> mass (because it has no rest mass) is that how do you get a 
>>>>>>> photon to change its momentum (i.e. accelerate) in order to 
>>>>>>> measure its inertial mass. It can’t go faster or slower than c 
>>>>>>> in a vacuum, so it can’t accelerate in a linear direction, and 
>>>>>>> in normal physics a photon doesn’t follow a curved path (except 
>>>>>>> with gravity), which would make it possible to measure its 
>>>>>>> centripetal acceleration c^2/R . But as I showed in my short 
>>>>>>> electron inertia article at 
>>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/19652036/The_Origin_of_the_Electrons_Inertia 
>>>>>>> <https://www.academia.edu/1%0A%0A%2%0A09652036%0A/The_Origin_of_the_Elect%0Arons_Inertia> 
>>>>>>> , the electron model in a resting electron has the photon going 
>>>>>>> in a circle, with momentum mc and speed c, and the electron's 
>>>>>>> inertial mass is then calculated to be M-inertial 
>>>>>>> =(dp/dt)/Acentrifugal =wmc/(c^2/r)= m which is the inertial mass 
>>>>>>> of the electron. But this calculation of the circling charged 
>>>>>>> photon's inertial mass is independent of the radius of the 
>>>>>>> charged photon’s circular orbit. Let that circular radius go 
>>>>>>> towards infinity and you get a photon traveling in essentially a 
>>>>>>> straight line, still having its inertial mass M =hf/c^2 (where 
>>>>>>> the photon frequency f decreases as the radius of the circle 
>>>>>>> increases) . So according to this logic, a linearly moving 
>>>>>>> photon DOES have inertial mass M-inertial =hf/c^2 even though a 
>>>>>>> photon has zero rest mass. And when a relativistic electron with 
>>>>>>> momentum p=gamma mv travels in a circle with speed v, the iner 
>>>>>>> tia l mass c alculation above gives M -in ertial = gamma m for a 
>>>>>>> circling relativistic electron, and not just m the electron’s 
>>>>>>> rest mass . Extending the radius here towards infinity also 
>>>>>>> gives a linearly moving electron an inertial mass M = gamma m 
>>>>>>> and not just the electron's rest mass m."
>>>>>>>       As far as I know these are all original derivations of the 
>>>>>>> inertial mass of a resting electron, a photon and a relativistic 
>>>>>>> electron based on a circulating photon model of an electron. I 
>>>>>>> would be pleased to be shown otherwise.
>>>>>>>   Richard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2016, at 6:42 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra 
>>>>>>>> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, Vlad, that is also my viewpoint.
>>>>>>>> I do not remember whether I have attached this paper while 
>>>>>>>> communicating with you earlier. I call the “plenum” Cosmic 
>>>>>>>> Tension Field (CTF), to be descriptive in its essential properties.
>>>>>>>> Chandra.
>>>>>>>> *From:*General 
>>>>>>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On 
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of*Vladimir Tamari
>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, January 23, 2016 7:00 PM
>>>>>>>> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: [General] (no subject)
>>>>>>>> Hi Richard
>>>>>>>> I barge into your discussion without knowing your views on a 
>>>>>>>> "plenum field" but if it is an ether I definitely think there 
>>>>>>>> is one. A "coefficent of inertia" might be defined as the 
>>>>>>>> amount of momentum the ether resists. In a charged or 
>>>>>>>> gravitational field this coefficent would increase...I think of 
>>>>>>>> this in terms of my Beautiful Universe ether of dielectric 
>>>>>>>> nodes, except this may give the wrong idea it is something 
>>>>>>>> matter wades in.. not so. Matter and ether are made if the 
>>>>>>>> selfsame nodes of energy!
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> Vladimir
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _____________________
>>>>>>>> vladimirtamari.com <http://vladimirtamari.com/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Richard Gauthier 
>>>>>>>> <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Hi Hodge,
>>>>>>>>         I don’t remember asking that. But if I did, I’m glad
>>>>>>>>     the question was helpful.
>>>>>>>>        I’m thinking about inertia these days. Do you or others
>>>>>>>>     have any insights about its nature?
>>>>>>>>      Richard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         On Jan 20, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Hodge John
>>>>>>>>         <jchodge at frontier.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>         Richard Gauthier:
>>>>>>>>         You asked if the galaxy redshift, Pioneer anomaly,
>>>>>>>>         Pound--Rebka experiment model had a velocity term. I
>>>>>>>>         looked at redshift data for 1 galaxy and found no
>>>>>>>>         indication of a velocity term.
>>>>>>>>         I had not noticed this in the equations. Your
>>>>>>>>         suggestion that the plenum field can look like the
>>>>>>>>         Higgs field seems valid. That is, the acceleration of
>>>>>>>>         the plenum field looks like it adds energy (mass) is a
>>>>>>>>         Higgs Field characteristic. Thus, the plenum is closer
>>>>>>>>         to the idea of a quantum field and Higgs field (weak
>>>>>>>>         force).
>>>>>>>>         Thanks for the insight.
>>>>>>>>         Hodge
>>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>         If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>>>>>>>>         Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>>>         atrichgauthier at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>         <a
>>>>>>>>         href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>         Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>         </a>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>     If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
>>>>>>>>     Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List
>>>>>>>>     atvladimirtamari at hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>     <a
>>>>>>>>     href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>>     Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>     </a>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <2012.2_JMP_Space as real 
>>>>>>>> field.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature 
>>>>>>>> of Light and Particles General Discussion List 
>>>>>>>> atrichgauthier at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <a 
>>>>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>>>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>>>>> </a>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>>>>> 	Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der 
>>>>>> von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>>>> www.avast.com 
>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>>> 	Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der 
>>>> von Avast geschützt wird.
>>>> www.avast.com 
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von einem virenfreien Computer gesendet, der von 
>> Avast geschützt wird.
>> www.avast.com 
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160204/c8da94bb/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list